Christ on every page of the OT.

[Xalith]

So I've watched a number of Dr. Chuck Missler's sermons, and one of the things he loves saying over and over again is the Title of this thread: Christ is on every page of the OT.

He's also fond of saying that if there's something you don't understand, that you should praise God because you're about to discover something new, and that you should try putting Christ in the center of it and the answer is usually revealed.

Ever since he's said that, every time I read from the Old Testament, in the back of my mind, I ask myself...

"Where is Christ in this?"

On each story I read of the Old Testament... and you know what? I've yet to run into a single story of the OT that did not have something to do with Christ in some way, some shape, some form, or some manner. And even if there were a chapter that didn't, the next chapter (which is usually a continuation), will.

Starting with Genesis 1:1 all the way to the prophets, you will find either an allusion to Christ, a prediction of Christ, a type of Christ, or some detail having to do with Christ. Either that, or you'll find endtimes prophecy (the prophets were littered with these).

If you come to a story or part that you can't find Christ... oh, He's there... you're probably not looking at right, or it might be buried rather deeply (such as David's genealogy being buried in the Hebrew Text in Genesis 38).

So my challenge to you... if you find a section of the OT where you cannot see Christ at all, post it here and I bet there's some way we can link it to Christ.

 

[dysert]

Christ is on every page of the OT.

I guess it depends on how big the pages are ;-)

 

[Xalith]

I guess it depends on how big the pages are ;-)

Pages was obviously used as a figure of speech. I would suffice to say any "story" in the Old Testament or perhaps "Section" would do.

 

[Hoghead1]

The notion that Christ and many NT events are prefigured in the OT has been widespread in Christianity. Just about everyone in graduate biblical studies this view. I did a major paper on Wilhelm Vischer, a major 20-century spokesman fore this view, which many refer to as the Christ-in-ever-corner-of-the-OT approach. While this approach has considerable appeal and real merit, I and other biblical scholars have problems with it. For one thing, it is an allegorical approach, which, as Calvin points out, turns Scripture into a nose of wax you can twist any way you want. Once you start reading in deep, hidden, inner secrets into biblical passage, you are going beyond the plain meaning of the text and distorting; and, if you are clever enough, you can get away with just about anything. St. Thomas Aquinas, using this approach, argued Genesis wasn't about Adam and Eve alone, but about a whole society which lived in Eden, the members of which had no sex drive. The problem is that in ignoring the stated content of the text, it ignores the historicity of the text. Hence, whenever you read the OT, the OT vanishes; its all just another NT account. How the characters in that time period is to be ignored or swept aside, because all
that s of interest again, is the NT. Also the actual meaning of some OT texts has been completely by by Christians overly zealous to read the NT back into the OT. So I am respectful but also leary of this approach.

 

[Xalith]

Well, yes, obviously, care should be taken that you don't take this to extremes. Again, I said "Christ on every corner" not "let's forget about what the OT is really about and turn it into the NT" or anything as crazy.

I believe that, for example, the names of the Genealogy found in Genesis 5 is a prophecy of Christ (You need to look up the original Hebrew names and get their translations to see it), but yet I'm not going to just dump the original, literal meaning because of it. Yes, there were actual people who lived those years and had those children. However, the names of these people were deliberately chosen and set up that way to make a prophecy about Christ.

Just one quick example. Whenever I say to examine the Bible and find Christ in every corner, I am not saying to abandon the literal meaning of the Bible. I believe in the Rapture and the Millennial Kingdom; I'm not one to allegorize the Bible.

However, even I have to admit that many passages in the Bible have several different meanings, or perhaps Layers is the more correct term.

You have Layer 1 which is the literal meaning of the words. Yes those events did occur just as stated. However, you also have Layers 2+ which require some allegorization, or ELS, or the original Hebrew Translation of the names, etc. I never once meant to throw out Layer 1 or ignore it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I beg to disagree. You are going overboard, whit is the mistake this Christ-in-every-corner theory misleads people to do. You have simply reduced the OT and its people to mere shells, having no life of their own, except as some sort of pre-immitation of NT events. Also, you seem to be turning Scripture into a nose of wax you can twist any way you want. Why? Because you completely ignore the plain meaning of the text.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The problem is that in ignoring the stated content of the text, it ignores the historicity of the text. Hence, whenever you read the OT, the OT vanishes; its all just another NT account. How the characters in that time period is to be ignored or swept aside, because all
that s of interest again, is the NT. Also the actual meaning of some OT texts has been completely by by Christians overly zealous to read the NT back into the OT. So I am respectful but also leary of this approach.

Not sure what the "by by" part means....no doubt a typo...
As for the rest of this can you give examples with some explanation...preferably not those in the paper you wrote...prefer more off the cuff info if you don't mind...tho I would be interested in the paper you wrote....probably over my head, but....can you give me a link?

 

[Hoghead1]

Not sure what the "by by" part means....no doubt a typo...
As for the rest of this can you give examples with some explanation...preferably not those in the paper you wrote...prefer more off the cuff info if you don't mind...tho I would be interested in the paper you wrote....probably over my head, but....can you give me a link?

 

[Hoghead1]

Examples? No problemo. Just take a look at some of the emails I have responded to. One just came in today, where it was said the names given, as well of the characters, were in the OT as a kind of pre-imitation of NT events.

Incidentally, I am also a Civil War buff. I'm the hoghead because I am part of a volunteer group that rebuilt and runs a 116-year-old steam locomotive. Not like the Texas or the General, much smaller.

 

[Xalith]

I beg to disagree. You are going overboard, whit is the mistake this Christ-in-every-corner theory misleads people to do. You have simply reduced the OT and its people to mere shells, having no life of their own, except as some sort of pre-immitation of NT events. Also, you seem to be turning Scripture into a nose of wax you can twist any way you want. Why? Because you completely ignore the plain meaning of the text.

You appear to be misunderstanding what I said in my previous post.

I said that there are "Layers" of meaning in Scripture.

"Layer 1" is the surface meaning, and it is true. These people existed, they had minds, they had souls, they had personalities, they had families, and they did all of the things the Bible says they did.

"Layer 2" and beyond are types, allegories, etc underneath it.

Abraham was called upon by God to offer Isaac at a very specific spot. Abraham obviously felt pain but yet had faith that God would keep His promise, and Abraham did exactly as God told him to do. That's "Layer 1".

"Layer 2" is the fact that the very spot this occurred is very near (if not the exact same spot) as Golgotha. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his very own son but God told him to stop and provided a ram for the sacrifice instead.

"Layer 3" is the notion that one father (Abraham) was held back from offering his son... but yet another Father offered His Son on that very spot instead.

Am I ignoring "Layer 1" and the personalities of Abraham and Isaac? No! I'm not! Abraham shows a beautiful and exemplary amount of faith here, the kind of faith that we are all called to exhibit ourselves. This is a lesson for everybody today.

However, underneath that... you can see the linkage, the parable, of how one father was told "No, you don't have to do this, I was just testing you." that very same Father later on offered His own Son at that very same spot, a few thousand years later.

Just one example.

 

[Hoghead1]

You appear to be misunderstanding what I said in my previous post.

I said that there are "Layers" of meaning in Scripture.

"Layer 1" is the surface meaning, and it is true. These people existed, they had minds, they had souls, they had personalities, they had families, and they did all of the things the Bible says they did.

"Layer 2" and beyond are types, allegories, etc underneath it.

Abraham was called upon by God to offer Isaac at a very specific spot. Abraham obviously felt pain but yet had faith that God would keep His promise, and Abraham did exactly as God told him to do. That's "Layer 1".

"Layer 2" is the fact that the very spot this occurred is very near (if not the exact same spot) as Golgotha. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his very own son but God told him to stop and provided a ram for the sacrifice instead.

"Layer 3" is the notion that one father (Abraham) was held back from offering his son... but yet another Father offered His Son on that very spot instead.

Am I ignoring "Layer 1" and the personalities of Abraham and Isaac? No! I'm not! Abraham shows a beautiful and exemplary amount of faith here, the kind of faith that we are all called to exhibit ourselves. This is a lesson for everybody today.

However, underneath that... you can see the linkage, the parable, of how one father was told "No, you don't have to do this, I was just testing you." that very same Father later on offered His own Son at that very same spot, a few thousand years later.

Just one example.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is precisely this layer approach that I have trouble with. I am skeptical about it because it seems to completely contradict and the stated content of the passage. What it does is turn the passage into a kind of Rorschach card so that you can read in anything you want. How, for example, dos one go from the mere surface layer to the deep, hidden, inner secret meaning? What makes you think that your interpretation is correct? I mean, I could easily go to anyone of the above posts and read in a hidden meaning completely different from yours. That's why the Reformation cracked down on the allegorical approach and recognize the Bible speaks directly to us, that what the passage states right up front is what the author means.

 

[Xalith]

What makes you think that your interpretation is correct?

On the example I just read above?

Grab a map, and map these places out. Do some research, and you will find that the account given in the Bible matches up very closely, if not spot on, with where Golgotha would later be.

As for "one father didn't offer his son, but yet Another did"? Common sense logic.

We know that God offered His Son up to be sacrificed for our sins at Golgotha (or Calvary or whatever you want to call it). We know that Abraham did not sacrifice his son because an Angel appeared to him and told him to stop and God provided a ram instead.

Well, common sense logic. 2+2=4, does it not?

Please explain if you think I've erred anywhere in this line of thinking.

 

[Xalith]

Here's another for you.

Watch this video (it is short!):

Once you've seen the whole thing.... you try and tell me that God didn't do that deliberately to reference Christ 1000+ years before He came.

 

[Hoghead1]

On the example I just read above?

Grab a map, and map these places out. Do some research, and you will find that the account given in the Bible matches up very closely, if not spot on, with where Golgotha would later be.

As for "one father didn't offer his son, but yet Another did"? Common sense logic.

We know that God offered His Son up to be sacrificed for our sins at Golgotha (or Calvary or whatever you want to call it). We know that Abraham did not sacrifice his son because an Angel appeared to him and told him to stop and God provided a ram instead.

Well, common sense logic. 2+2=4, does it not?

Please explain if you think I've erred anywhere in this line of thinking.

 

[Hoghead1]

I completely disagree with this whole approach. For example, Abraham stands for Abraham, not God, for example. If you want to understand he situation, then you need to focus on God interacting with the OT world. Your approach seems to reduce the characters to some kind actors, whose lives mean little, whose primary function is to act out or pantomime NT events. Hence, they lived the way they did, because certain NT events went that way. Hence, the OT is collapsed into the NT, really just an earlier version of he NT

 

[Xalith]

I completely disagree with this whole approach. For example, Abraham stands for Abraham, not God, for example. If you want to understand he situation, then you need to focus on God interacting with the OT world. Your approach seems to reduce the characters to some kind actors, whose lives mean little, whose primary function is to act out or pantomime NT events. Hence, they lived the way they did, because certain NT events went that way. Hence, the OT is collapsed into the NT, really just an earlier version of he NT

So basically you're saying that God couldn't possibly engineer these events as a foreshadowing of events that would occur later, then?

If you were God, and you wanted people to believe that your Bible was the true word of God, what would be the easiest way to accomplish that?

There are two things that He did to do this:

1). Have the Bible written in such a way that it anticipates future events, make parallels and types, too numerous to write off as coincidences (there are numerous patterns, foreshadowing, etc all through the Bible).
2). Have the Bible make prophecies that would later come to be fulfilled (and some that are not fulfilled yet).

You do that, and only the most blind people could possibly scoff at it, and they would have no excuse for not believing in it.

The Bible does exactly that. And again, you're trying to say that I am reducing people to "actors"... when I told you plain and clearly I'm not. What I AM saying is that God engineered things to happen the way they did to foreshadow later things.

Did you watch that video? I noticed that you seemingly skipped over it. That's okay if you really don't want to watch it, but you appear to be putting your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes with your hands going "lalalalala I don't hear you, I don't wanna hear this lalalalalala".

As the video says, Christ Himself said that "The whole volume of Scriptures is written of Me" in two places in the Bible. Gee, doesn't it seem kinda funny that one of those places is in the OT and the other in the NT?

Jesus Himself said the book is written about Him.

Do we need any more evidence than words right out of the mouth of our Lord?

Psalms 40:7
Hebrews 10:7

(Kinda funny that it is Verse 7 in both?)

 

[mikedsjr]

Xalith, I do agree Christ is in much of the OT. I love looking for how he is shown in the OT, but I look at the history first, and usually it's someone else who points out the typological examples of Christ. It's quite amazing how they come off the page. It's as if the whole encounters were literally predestined to happen in some form they happened.

 

[Xalith]

Xalith, I do agree Christ is in much of the OT. I love looking for how he is shown in the OT, but I look at the history first, and usually it's someone else who points out the typological examples of Christ. It's quite amazing how they come off the page. It's as if the whole encounters were literally predestined to happen in some form they happened.

Yes, everybody should look at the history first. Take the Bible literally first and foremost... but then after you've read and understand the literal meaning, go back over the words and think about them... does this particular event foreshadow something else? Did a similar event like this happen in Jesus's time? etc etc.

I'll give you another example... compare the Book of Joshua with the Book of Revelation. Keep in mind that after the walls around Jericho falls, and Joshua encounters what he thought was an angel... what did the angel tell Joshua to do, and how did Joshua react? What do angels never allow people to do anywhere else in the Bible?

 

[Hoghead1]

So basically you're saying that God couldn't possibly engineer these events as a foreshadowing of events that would occur later, then?

If you were God, and you wanted people to believe that your Bible was the true word of God, what would be the easiest way to accomplish that?

There are two things that He did to do this:

1). Have the Bible written in such a way that it anticipates future events, make parallels and types, too numerous to write off as coincidences (there are numerous patterns, foreshadowing, etc all through the Bible).
2). Have the Bible make prophecies that would later come to be fulfilled (and some that are not fulfilled yet).

You do that, and only the most blind people could possibly scoff at it, and they would have no excuse for not believing in it.

The Bible does exactly that. And again, you're trying to say that I am reducing people to "actors"... when I told you plain and clearly I'm not. What I AM saying is that God engineered things to happen the way they did to foreshadow later things.

Did you watch that video? I noticed that you seemingly skipped over it. That's okay if you really don't want to watch it, but you appear to be putting your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes with your hands going "lalalalala I don't hear you, I don't wanna hear this lalalalalala".

As the video says, Christ Himself said that "The whole volume of Scriptures is written of Me" in two places in the Bible. Gee, doesn't it seem kinda funny that one of those places is in the OT and the other in the NT?

Jesus Himself said the book is written about Him.

Do we need any more evidence than words right out of the mouth of our Lord?

Psalms 40:7
Hebrews 10:7

(Kinda funny that it is Verse 7 in both?)